| Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J |
This brings up a question that has been in the fact of my mind since EE4J was announced. I understood the JCP organization to theoretically work like the following: - Companies paid Oracle/Sun to license Java/Java EE - Licensing fees were re-invested in the specification development and RI by paying for people to work on tasks as a part of their full-time job (JCP funded via licensing) - Original JCP membership fees ($2000) also helped to subsidize the process - Vendors contributed engineering and spec development in addition to their fees - Compatibility tests were kept private so that companies were forced to licensing fees so not as to claim de facto compliance and undermine the entire process Going forward, are the licensing fees/revenue going to flow to Eclipse and cover some of the development (specifically spec writing)? -Ryan That’s at least broadly how I understood the arrangement but I am on the outside looking in. > On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:18 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/10/2017 14:48, reza_rahman wrote: >> More specifically, is Red Hat going to continue to move CDI and Bean >> Validation forward? What about JPA? I don't think anyone in the >> community can realistically move that forward. I have similar concerns >> for Servlet (and perhaps a more reactive alternative to Servlet). These >> APIs are so complex that you really need dedicated folks that work for a >> vendor full time to move them forward. > > As (I guess now former) member of the Servlet expert group I don't share > those concerns for the Servlet spec. > > I can't speak to the others as I wasn't involved. > > Assuming that the majority of the Servlet EG members wish to continue > (and it appears so far that they do) and assuming that the new body > switches to a consensus based process where all members have commit > access then I'm confident that the Servlet spec would make considerable > progress both in new areas such as Reactive and in clarifying a good > number of the ambiguities in the current spec that the user community > has been asking to be clarified for some time. > > Mark > >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: 10/12/17 7:44 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Red Hat committment to EE4J >> >> Mark, >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:35 AM Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> For the avoidance of doubt and for those who haven't been paying >> attention :) Red Hat is committed to working for the continuing >> success of Java EE and now EE4J. We intend to put forward various >> individuals who may be relevant to lead various JSRs if no other >> appropriate community members step forward as well as the JSRs we lead >> currently. When the time is right (note, when not if) we'll also work >> to ensure EE4J and Eclipse MicroProfile collaborate in a meaningful >> manner and hopefully "merge" in whatever way is appropriate and >> determined by both communities. >> >> >> I'm assuming that the last "we" here is the MicroProfile community and >> not RedHat, correct? >> >> >> >> Mark. >> _______________________________________________ >> ee4j-community mailing list >> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or >> unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ee4j-community mailing list >> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community >> > > _______________________________________________ > ee4j-community mailing list > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP